Non-Invasive Vagus Nerve Stimulation Improves Brain Lesion Volume and Neurobehavioral Outcomes in a Rat Model of Traumatic Brain Injury.

Abstract Traumatic brain injury (TBI) continues to be a major cause of death and disability worldwide. This study assessed the effectiveness of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) in reducing brain lesion volume and improving neurobehavioral performance in a rat model of TBI. Animals were randomized into three experimental groups: (1) TBI with sham stimulation treatment (Control), (2) TBI treated with five lower doses (2-min) nVNS, and (3) TBI treated with five higher doses (2 × 2-min) nVNS. We used the gammaCore nVNS device to deliver stimulations. Magnetic resonance imaging studies were performed 1 and 7 days post-injury to confirm lesion volume. We observed smaller brain lesion volume in the lower dose nVNS group compared with the control group on days 1 and 7. The lesion volume for the higher dose nVNS group was significantly smaller than either the lower dose nVNS or the control groups on days 1 and 7 post-injury. The apparent diffusion coefficient differences between the ipsilateral and contralateral hemispheres on day 1 were significantly smaller for the higher dose (2 × 2 min) nVNS group than for the control group. Voxel-based morphometry analysis revealed an increase in the ipsilateral cortical volume in the control group caused by tissue deformation and swelling. On day 1, these abnormal volume changes were 13% and 55% smaller in the lower dose and higher dose nVNS groups, respectively, compared with the control group. By day 7, nVNS dampened cortical volume loss by 35% and 89% in the lower dose and higher dose nVNS groups, respectively, compared with the control group. Rotarod, beam walking, and anxiety performances were significantly improved in the higher-dose nVNS group on day 1 compared with the control group. The anxiety indices were also improved on day 7 post-injury compared with the control and the lower-dose nVNS groups. In conclusion, the higher dose nVNS (five 2 × 2-min stimulations) reduced brain lesion volume to a level that further refined the role of nVNS therapy for the acute treatment of TBI. Should nVNS prove effective in additional pre-clinical TBI models and later in clinical settings, it would have an enormous impact on the clinical practice of TBI in both civilian and military settings, as it can easily be adopted into routine clinical practice.

Non-invasive Vagus Nerve Stimulation for COVID-19: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial (SAVIOR I).

Background: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is characterized, in part, by an excessive inflammatory response. Evidence from animal and human studies suggests that vagus nerve stimulation can lead to reduced levels of various biomarkers of inflammation. We conducted a prospective randomized controlled study (SAVIOR-I) to assess the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) for the treatment of respiratory symptoms and inflammatory markers among patients who were hospitalized for COVID-19 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04368156). Methods: Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 allocation to receive either the standard of care (SoC) alone or nVNS therapy plus the SoC. The nVNS group received 2 consecutive 2-min doses of nVNS 3 times daily as prophylaxis. Efficacy and safety were evaluated via the incidence of specific clinical events, inflammatory biomarker levels, and the occurrence of adverse events. Results: Of the 110 participants who were enrolled and randomly assigned, 97 (nVNS, n = 47; SoC, n = 50) had sufficient available data and comprised the evaluable population. C-reactive protein (CRP) levels decreased from baseline to a significantly greater degree in the nVNS group than in the SoC group at day 5 and overall (i.e., all postbaseline data points collected through day 5, combined). Procalcitonin level also showed significantly greater decreases from baseline to day 5 in the nVNS group than in the SoC group. D-dimer levels were decreased from baseline for the nVNS group and increased from baseline for the SoC group at day 5 and overall, although the difference between the treatment groups did not reach statistical significance. No significant treatment differences were seen for clinical respiratory outcomes or any of the other biochemical markers evaluated. No serious nVNS-related adverse events occurred during the study. Conclusions: nVNS therapy led to significant reductions in levels of inflammatory markers, specifically CRP and procalcitonin. Because nVNS has multiple mechanisms of action that may be relevant to COVID-19, additional research into its potential use earlier in the course of COVID-19 and its potential to mitigate some of the symptoms associated with post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 is warranted.

Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for prevention of migraine: The multicenter, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled PREMIUM II trial.

AIM: Evaluate the efficacy and safety of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for migraine prevention. METHODS: After completing a 4-week diary run-in period, adults who had migraine with or without aura were randomly assigned to receive active non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation or sham therapy during a 12-week double-blind period. RESULTS: Of 336 enrolled participants, 113 (active, n = 56; sham, n = 57) completed ≥70 days of the double-blind period and were ≥66% adherent with treatment, comprising the prespecified modified intention-to-treat population. The COVID-19 pandemic led to early trial termination, and the population was ∼60% smaller than the statistical target for full power. Mean reduction in monthly migraine days (primary endpoint) was 3.12 for the active group and 2.29 days for the sham group (difference, -0.83; p = 0.2329). Responder rate (i.e. the percentage of participants with a ≥50% reduction in migraine days) was greater in the active group (44.87%) than the sham group (26.81%; p = 0.0481). Prespecified subgroup analysis suggested that participants with aura responded preferentially. No serious device-related adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest clinical utility of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for migraine prevention, particularly for patients who have migraine with aura, and reinforce the well-established safety and tolerability profile of this therapy.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03716505).

NOn-invasive Vagus nerve stimulation in acute Ischemic Stroke (NOVIS): a study protocol for a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Secondary damage due to neurochemical and inflammatory changes in the penumbra in the first days after ischemic stroke contributes substantially to poor clinical outcome. In animal models, vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) inhibits these detrimental changes and thereby reduces tissue injury. The aim of this study is to investigate whether non-invasive cervical VNS (nVNS) in addition to the current standard treatment can improve penumbral recovery and limit final infarct volume. METHODS: NOVIS is a single-center prospective randomized clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment. One hundred fifty patients will be randomly allocated (1:1) within 12 h from clinical stroke onset to nVNS for 5 days in addition to standard treatment versus standard treatment alone. The primary endpoint is the final infarct volume on day 5 assessed with MRI. DISCUSSION: We hypothesize that nVNS will result in smaller final infarct volumes as compared to standard treatment due to improved penumbral recovery. The results of this study will be used to assess the viability and approach to power a larger trial to more definitively assess the clinical efficacy of nVNS after stroke. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04050501 . Registered on 8 August 2019.

Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for primary headache: A clinical update.

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) is a proven treatment for cluster headache and migraine. Several possible mechanisms of action by which nVNS mitigates headache have been identified. METHODS: We conducted a narrative review of recent scientific and clinical research into nVNS for headache, including findings from mechanistic studies and their possible relationships to the clinical effects of nVNS. RESULTS: Findings from animal and human studies have provided possible mechanistic explanations for nVNS efficacy in headache involving four core areas: Autonomic nervous system functions; cortical spreading depression inhibition; neurotransmitter regulation; and nociceptive modulation. We discuss how overlap and interplay among these areas may underlie the utility of nVNS in the context of clinical evidence supporting its safety and efficacy as acute and preventive therapy for both cluster headache and migraine. Possible future nVNS applications are also discussed. CONCLUSION: Significant progress over the past several years has yielded valuable mechanistic and clinical evidence that, combined with the excellent safety and tolerability profile of nVNS, suggests that it should be considered a first-line treatment for both acute and preventive treatment of cluster headache, an effective option for acute treatment of migraine, and a highly relevant, practical option for migraine prevention.

A Randomized Sham-Controlled Cross-Over Study on the Short-Term Effect of Non-Invasive Cervical Vagus Nerve Stimulation on Spinal and Supraspinal Nociception in Healthy Subjects.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to test the effects of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) on the descending pain inhibition, quantified by the nociceptive flexor (RIII) reflex and the conditioned pain modulation (CPM) paradigm, and on supraspinal nociceptive responses, assessed by pain intensity and unpleasantness ratings and late somatosensory evoked potentials (SEPs), in healthy subjects. BACKGROUND: Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) showed promising effects on headache and pain treatment. Underlying mechanisms are only incompletely understood but may include the activation of the descending pain inhibitory system and/or the modification of emotional responses to pain. METHODS: Twenty-seven adult, healthy, and pain-free subjects participated in this double-blind cross-over study conducted at a university research center. They received 4 minutes of cervical nVNS or sham stimulation in randomized order. RIII reflexes, pain ratings, and SEPs were assessed before, during, and 5, 15, 30, and 60 minutes after nVNS/sham stimulation, followed by CPM testing. The primary outcome was the nVNS effect on the RIII reflex size. Three subjects were excluded after the preparatory session (before randomization), 1 subject was excluded after outlier analysis, leaving 23 for analysis. RESULTS: RIII reflex areas were 917.1 ± 563.8 µV × ms (mean ± SD) before, 952.4 ± 467.4 µV × ms during and 929.2 ± 484.0 µV × ms immediately after nVNS and 858.4 ± 489.2 µV × ms before, 913.9 ± 539.7 µV × ms during and 862.4 ± 476.0 µV × ms after sham stimulation, revealing no differences between the immediate effects of nVNS and sham stimulation (F [3,66]  = 0.67, P = .574). There also were no effects of nVNS over sham on RIII reflex areas up to 60 minutes after nVNS (F [1.7,37.4]  = 1.29, P = .283). Similarly, there was no statistically significant effect of nVNS on pain intensity ratings and thresholds, RIII reflex thresholds, late SEP amplitudes, and the CPM effect, compared to sham. Pain unpleasantness ratings statistically significantly decreased from 4.4 ± 2.4 (NRS 0-10) to 4.1 ± 2.5 during nVNS compared to sham stimulation (F [1,22]  = 8.74, P = .007), but there were no longer lasting effects (5-60 minutes after stimulation). CONCLUSIONS: The present study does not support an acute effect of nVNS on descending pain inhibition, pain intensity perception or supraspinal nociception in healthy adults. However, there was a small effect on pain unpleasantness during nVNS, suggesting that nVNS may preferentially act on affective, not somatosensory pain components.

The Use of Non-invasive Vagus Nerve Stimulation to Treat Respiratory Symptoms Associated With COVID-19: A Theoretical Hypothesis and Early Clinical Experience.

OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is a pandemic with no specific therapeutic agents and substantial mortality, and finding new treatments is critical. Most cases are mild, but a significant minority of patients develop moderate to severe respiratory symptoms, with the most severe cases requiring intensive care and/or ventilator support. This respiratory compromise appears to be due to a hyperimmune reaction, often called a cytokine storm. Vagus nerve stimulation has been demonstrated to block production of cytokines in sepsis and other medical conditions. We hypothesize that non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) might provide clinical benefits in patients with respiratory symptoms similar to those associated with COVID-19. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Information on two case reports was obtained via email correspondence and phone interviews with the patients. RESULTS: Both patients reported clinically meaningful benefits from nVNS therapy. In case 1, the patient used nVNS to expedite symptomatic recovery at home after hospital discharge and was able to discontinue use of opioid and cough suppressant medications. In case 2, the patient experienced immediate and consistent relief from symptoms of chest tightness and shortness of breath, as well as an improved ability to clear his lungs. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary observations and a strong scientific foundation suggest that nVNS might provide clinical benefits in patients with COVID-19 via multiple mechanisms.

Real-world assessment of concomitant opioid utilization and associated trends in patients with migraine.

Migraine is a debilitating condition that affects approximately 16% of adults and is the fifth leading cause of emergency department visits in the United States. There are several treatment options for migraines; opioids are frequently prescribed. Results from a recent study showed that more than half of the patients with chronic migraine and a third of the patients with episodic migraine received an opioid prescription in the past year. The American Headache Society recognizes the magnitude of this issue and is working to educate providers on the danger of prescribing opioids in the migraine population The objective of this article is to assess the utilization trends of prescription opioid products and evaluate the impact of opioid utilization on healthcare costs in this patient population. This retrospective claims database analysis used real-world medical claims from multiple health plans. The study period was from January 1, 2009, to September 30, 2017. Patients were included if they were 18 years or older and continuously enrolled in the study period for at least 3 years. Patients were included in the migraine cohort if they had any diagnosis of migraine headache during the study period, while patients without a headache related diagnosis were included in the control cohort. Control patients were propensity matched 1:1 to migraine patients. Discrete (count) data are represented by frequencies and percentages. Continuous results are presented as means, medians, and standard deviations. In the study, 107,216 patients met the inclusion criteria, with 53,608 assigned to each cohort. In the migraine and control cohorts, respectively, 28% and 11% were prescribed opioids. In both cohorts, a majority of the patients were female (81.8%). In both cohorts, opioid use was associated with higher total costs compared with patients who were not prescribed opioids: $82,007 for 200 morphine milligram equivalents (MME)/day or more versus $19,792 for no opioid in patients with migraine; and $54,200 for 200 MME/day or more versus $12,060 for no opioid use in control patients; P <.0001. Patients with more than 2 comorbidities who were prescribed opioids had higher costs than patients with more than 2 comorbidities who were not prescribed opioids and patients with less than 2 comorbidities who were prescribed opioids ($65,980, $32,152, and $35,964, respectively, for patients with migraine, and $52,883, $24,641, and $35,748, respectively, for control patients; P <.0001). Patients with migraine have more than twice the healthcare costs as patients without migraines. The additional increase in healthcare costs in patients with migraine who use opioids for treatment and/or have 2 or more comorbidities is significant. Control of the pain associated with migraine, specifically among those with multiple comorbid conditions, may contribute to substantial reductions in healthcare costs.

Patient experience with non-invasive vagus nerve stimulator: gammaCore patient registry.

gammaCore is cleared by the FDA for acute and preventive treatment of cluster headache and the acute treatment of migraine in adults. Previously, only 2 treatments were approved for acute treatment of cluster headache while none were approved for preventive treatment. Following the initial FDA clearance, based on the ACT-1 and ACT-2 studies, a gammaCore Patient Registry (GPR) was designed to provide insights on the use of gammaCore and prescription patterns in the real-world setting and to characterize respective benefits and challenges during the acute treatment of episodic cluster headache. GPR was a prospective observational registry in which patients with episodic cluster headache (3rd edition of the International Classification of Headache Disorders criteria) who were prescribed gammaCore were invited to voluntarily enroll and provide information on their experiences between July 2017 and June 2018. Participants provided baseline information and were trained to self-administer treatment with gammaCore for cluster pain. Participants were also requested to record information for each cluster attack. Of the 182 patients who provided baseline demographic and cluster headache characteristics, 152 provided health index baseline data using EuroQol Health Index tool, 5-level format (EQ5D-5L) and 17 patients provided attack data on a total of 192 cluster headache attacks. The mean age was 49 years; 65% were male and 82% were white; the mean number of months of known diagnosis of cluster headache was 57; the mean number of attacks per cluster headache 4-week period was 14; and the mean pain score was 3.7 (0-4 scale) with a mean attack duration of 74 minutes. Sixty-seven percent of patients had used preventive treatments and 83% had used abortive treatments for cluster headaches; 25% of participants reported at least 1 comorbidity. The mean EQ5D-5L score (scale 0-1) was 0.83. Of the 192 cluster headache attacks reported, gammaCore was used in 116 (60%) attacks. Within this group, the mean pain score at the start of the attacks was 2.7, the mean number of stimulations used was 3.6, and the pain score after 30 minutes was 1.3. At 30 minutes, the pain of 81 (70%) attacks was reduced to none (27%) or mild (43%) (a pain score of 0 or 1) and in 94 (81%) attacks, patients experienced a reduction of at least 1 point in the pain score. This real-world observational evidence suggests that gammaCore adds clinically meaningful value to patients with episodic cluster headache by providing rapid pain relief and confirms that there is significant interest among prescribers in providing this new treatment and technology. This evidence further supports the need to redefine gammaCore as no longer investigational or experimental during considerations for reimbursement.

Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine: The multicentre, double-blind, randomised, sham-controlled PREMIUM trial.

INTRODUCTION: Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS; gammaCore®) has the potential to prevent migraine days in patients with migraine on the basis of mechanistic rationale and pilot clinical data. METHODS: This multicentre study included a 4-week run-in period, a 12-week double-blind period of randomised treatment with nVNS or sham, and a 24-week open-label period of nVNS. Patients were to administer two 120-second stimulations bilaterally to the neck three times daily (6-8 hours apart). RESULTS: Of 477 enrolled patients, 332 comprised the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. Mean reductions in migraine days per month (primary outcome) were 2.26 for nVNS (n = 165; baseline, 7.9 days) and 1.80 for sham (n = 167; baseline, 8.1 days) (p = 0.15). Results were similar across other outcomes. Upon observation of suboptimal adherence rates, post hoc analysis of patients with ≥ 67% adherence per month demonstrated significant differences between nVNS (n = 138) and sham (n = 140) for outcomes including reduction in migraine days (2.27 vs. 1.53; p = 0.043); therapeutic gains were greater in patients with aura than in those without aura. Most nVNS device-related adverse events were mild and transient, with application site discomfort being the most common. CONCLUSIONS: Preventive nVNS treatment in episodic migraine was not superior to sham stimulation in the ITT population. The "sham" device inadvertently provided a level of active vagus nerve stimulation. Post hoc analysis showed significant effects of nVNS in treatment-adherent patients. Study identification and registration: PREMIUM; NCT02378844; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02378844.

Differential efficacy of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for the acute treatment of episodic and chronic cluster headache: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Two randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trials (ACT1, ACT2) evaluated non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) as acute treatment for cluster headache. We analyzed pooled ACT1/ACT2 data to increase statistical power and gain insight into the differential efficacy of nVNS in episodic and chronic cluster headache. METHODS: Data extracted from ACT1 and ACT2 were pooled using a fixed-effects model. Main outcome measures were the primary endpoints of each study. This was the proportion of participants whose first treated attack improved from moderate (2), severe (3), or very severe (4) pain intensity to mild (1) or nil (0) for ACT1 and the proportion of treated attacks whose pain intensity improved from 2-4 to 0 for ACT2. RESULTS: The pooled population included 225 participants (episodic: n = 112; chronic: n = 113) from ACT1 (n = 133) and ACT2 (n = 92) in the nVNS (n = 108) and sham (n = 117) groups. Interaction was shown between treatment group and cluster headache subtype (p < 0.05). nVNS was superior to sham in episodic but not chronic cluster headache (both endpoints p < 0.01). Only four patients discontinued the studies due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: nVNS is a well-tolerated and effective acute treatment for episodic cluster headache. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The studies were registered at clinicaltrials.gov (ACT1: NCT01792817; ACT2: NCT01958125).

Non-invasive neuromodulation for migraine and cluster headache: a systematic review of clinical trials.

Non-invasive neuromodulation therapies for migraine and cluster headache are a practical and safe alternative to pharmacologics. Comparisons of these therapies are difficult because of the heterogeneity in study designs. In this systematic review of clinical trials, the scientific rigour and clinical relevance of the available data were assessed to inform clinical decisions about non-invasive neuromodulation. PubMed, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov databases and the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for relevant clinical studies of non-invasive neuromodulation devices for migraine and cluster headache (1 January 1990 to 31 January 2018), and 71 were identified. This analysis compared study designs using recommendations of the International Headache Society for pharmacological clinical trials, the only available guidelines for migraine and cluster headache. Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS), single-transcranial magnetic stimulation and external trigeminal nerve stimulation (all with regulatory clearance) were well studied compared with the other devices, for which studies frequently lacked proper blinding, sham controls and sufficient population sizes. nVNS studies demonstrated the most consistent adherence to available guidelines. Studies of all neuromodulation devices should strive to achieve the same high level of scientific rigour to allow for proper comparison across devices. Device-specific guidelines for migraine and cluster headache will be soon available, but adherence to current guidelines for pharmacological trials will remain a key consideration for investigators and clinicians.

Correction to: Practical and clinical utility of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) for the acute treatment of migraine: a post hoc analysis of the randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind PRESTO trial.

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors notified us that a part of the Figure 3 legend was omitted during proofing stage.

Correction to: Consistent effects of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) for the acute treatment of migraine: additional findings from the randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind PRESTO trial.

Following publication of the original article [1], the authors notified us o that the Table 1 citation within the legend was not presented as initially requested.

Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for treatment of cluster headache: early UK clinical experience.

BACKGROUND: Evidence supports the use of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS; gammaCore®) as a promising therapeutic option for patients with cluster headache (CH). We conducted this audit of real-world data from patients with CH, the majority of whom were treatment refractory, to explore early UK clinical experience with nVNS used acutely, preventively, or both. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed data from 30 patients with CH (29 chronic, 1 episodic) who submitted individual funding requests for nVNS to the National Health Service. All patients had responded to adjunctive nVNS therapy during an evaluation period (typical duration, 3-6 months). Data collected from patient interviews, treatment diaries, and physician notes were summarised with descriptive statistics. Paired t tests were used to examine statistical significance. RESULTS: The mean (SD) CH attack frequency decreased from 26.6 (17.1) attacks/wk. before initiation of nVNS therapy to 9.5 (11.0) attacks/wk. (P < 0.01) afterward. Mean (SD) attack duration decreased from 51.9 (36.7) minutes to 29.4 (28.5) minutes (P < 0.01), and mean (SD) attack severity (rated on a 10-point scale) decreased from 7.8 (2.3) to 6.0 (2.6) (P < 0.01). Use of abortive treatments also decreased. Favourable changes in the use of preventive medication were also observed. No serious device-related adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Significant decreases in attack frequency, severity, and duration were observed in these patients with CH who did not respond to or were intolerant of multiple preventive and/or acute treatments. These real-world findings complement evidence from clinical trials demonstrating the efficacy and safety of nVNS in CH.

Consistent effects of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) for the acute treatment of migraine: additional findings from the randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind PRESTO trial.

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) has been shown to be practical, safe, and well tolerated for treating primary headache disorders. The recent multicenter, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled PRESTO trial provided Class I evidence that for patients with episodic migraine, nVNS significantly increases the probability of having mild pain or being pain-free 2 h post stimulation. We report additional pre-defined secondary and other end points from PRESTO that demonstrate the consistency and durability of nVNS efficacy across a broad range of outcomes. METHODS: After a 4-week observation period, 248 patients with episodic migraine with/without aura were randomly assigned to acute treatment of migraine attacks with nVNS (n = 122) or a sham device (n = 126) during a double-blind period lasting 4 weeks (or until the patient had treated 5 attacks). All patients received nVNS therapy during the subsequent 4-week/5-attack open-label period. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population consisted of 243 patients. The nVNS group (n = 120) had a significantly greater percentage of attacks treated during the double-blind period that were pain-free at 60 (P = 0.005) and 120 min (P = 0.026) than the sham group (n = 123) did. Similar results were seen for attacks with pain relief at 60 (P = 0.025) and 120 min (P = 0.018). For the first attack and all attacks, the nVNS group had significantly greater decreases (vs sham) in pain score from baseline to 60 min (P = 0.029); the decrease was also significantly greater for nVNS at 120 min for the first attack (P = 0.011). Results during the open-label period were consistent with those of the nVNS group during the double-blind period. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) and adverse device effects was low across all study periods, and no serious AEs occurred. CONCLUSIONS: These results further demonstrate that nVNS is an effective and reliable acute treatment for multiple migraine attacks, which can be used safely while preserving the patient's option to use traditional acute medications as rescue therapy, possibly decreasing the risk of medication overuse. Together with its practicality and optimal tolerability profile, these findings suggest nVNS has value as a front-line option for acute treatment of migraine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02686034 .

Practical and clinical utility of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) for the acute treatment of migraine: a post hoc analysis of the randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind PRESTO trial.

BACKGROUND: The PRESTO study of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS; gammaCore®) featured key primary and secondary end points recommended by the International Headache Society to provide Class I evidence that for patients with an episodic migraine, nVNS significantly increases the probability of having mild pain or being pain-free 2 h post stimulation. Here, we examined additional data from PRESTO to provide further insights into the practical utility of nVNS by evaluating its ability to consistently deliver clinically meaningful improvements in pain intensity while reducing the need for rescue medication. METHODS: Patients recorded pain intensity for treated migraine attacks on a 4-point scale. Data were examined to compare nVNS and sham with regard to the percentage of patients who benefited by at least 1 point in pain intensity. We also assessed the percentage of attacks that required rescue medication and pain-free rates stratified by pain intensity at treatment initiation. RESULTS: A significantly higher percentage of patients who used acute nVNS treatment (n = 120) vs sham (n = 123) reported a ≥ 1-point decrease in pain intensity at 30 min (nVNS, 32.2%; sham, 18.5%; P = 0.020), 60 min (nVNS, 38.8%; sham, 24.0%; P = 0.017), and 120 min (nVNS, 46.8%; sham, 26.2%; P = 0.002) after the first attack. Similar significant results were seen when assessing the benefit in all attacks. The proportion of patients who did not require rescue medication was significantly higher with nVNS than with sham for the first attack (nVNS, 59.3%; sham, 41.9%; P = 0.013) and all attacks (nVNS, 52.3%; sham, 37.3%; P = 0.008). When initial pain intensity was mild, the percentage of patients with no pain after treatment was significantly higher with nVNS than with sham at 60 min (all attacks: nVNS, 37.0%; sham, 21.2%; P = 0.025) and 120 min (first attack: nVNS, 50.0%; sham, 25.0%; P = 0.018; all attacks: nVNS, 46.7%; sham, 30.1%; P = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: This post hoc analysis demonstrated that acute nVNS treatment quickly and consistently reduced pain intensity while decreasing rescue medication use. These clinical benefits provide guidance in the optimal use of nVNS in everyday practice, which can potentially reduce use of acute pharmacologic medications and their associated adverse events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02686034 .

Effect of Non-invasive Vagus Nerve Stimulation on Resting-State Electroencephalography and Laser-Evoked Potentials in Migraine Patients: Mechanistic Insights.

A recent multicenter trial provided Class I evidence that for patients with an episodic migraine, non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) significantly increases the probability of having mild pain or being pain-free 2 h post-stimulation. Here we aimed to investigate the potential effect of nVNS in the modulation of spontaneous and pain related bioelectrical activity in a subgroup of migraine patients enrolled in the PRESTO trial by using resting-state electroencephalography and trigeminal laser-evoked potentials (LEPs). LEPs were recorded for 27 migraine patients who received active or sham nVNS over the cervical vagus nerve. We measured power values for frequencies between 1-100 Hz in a resting-state condition and the latency and amplitude of N1, N2, and P2 components of LEPs in a basal condition during and after active or sham vagus nerve stimulation (T0, T1, T2). The P2 evoked by the right and the left trigeminal branch was smaller during active nVNS. The sham device also attenuated the P2 amplitude evoked by the left trigeminal branch at T1 and T2, but this attenuation did not reach significance. No changes were observed for N1 amplitude, N1, N2, P2 latency, or pain rating. nVNS induced an increase of EEG power in both slow and fast rhythms, but this effect was not significant as compared to the sham device. These findings suggest that nVNS acts on the cortical areas that are responsible for trigeminal pain control and pave the ground for future studies aimed at confirming the possible correlations with clinical outcomes, including the effect on symptoms that are directly correlated with trigeminal pain processing and modulation.

Noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation as acute therapy for migraine: The randomized PRESTO study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS; gammaCore; electroCore, LLC, Basking Ridge, NJ) for the acute treatment of migraine in a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, sham-controlled trial. METHODS: A total of 248 participants with episodic migraine with/without aura were randomized to receive nVNS or sham within 20 minutes from pain onset. Participants were to repeat treatment if pain had not improved in 15 minutes. RESULTS: nVNS (n = 120) was superior to sham (n = 123) for pain freedom at 30 minutes (12.7% vs 4.2%; p = 0.012) and 60 minutes (21.0% vs 10.0%; p = 0.023) but not at 120 minutes (30.4% vs 19.7%; p = 0.067; primary endpoint; logistic regression) after the first treated attack. A post hoc repeated-measures test provided further insight into the therapeutic benefit of nVNS through 30, 60, and 120 minutes (odds ratio 2.3; 95% confidence interval 1.2, 4.4; p = 0.012). nVNS demonstrated benefits across other endpoints including pain relief at 120 minutes and was safe and well-tolerated. CONCLUSION: This randomized sham-controlled trial supports the abortive efficacy of nVNS as early as 30 minutes and up to 60 minutes after an attack. Findings also suggest effective pain relief, tolerability, and practicality of nVNS for the acute treatment of episodic migraine. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02686034. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class I evidence that for patients with an episodic migraine, nVNS significantly increases the probability of having mild pain or being pain-free 2 hours poststimulation (absolute difference 13.2%).

Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for the acute treatment of episodic and chronic cluster headache: A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled ACT2 study.

Background Clinical observations and results from recent studies support the use of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) for treating cluster headache (CH) attacks. This study compared nVNS with a sham device for acute treatment in patients with episodic or chronic CH (eCH, cCH). Methods After completing a 1-week run-in period, subjects were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive nVNS or sham therapy during a 2-week double-blind period. The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of all treated attacks that achieved pain-free status within 15 minutes after treatment initiation, without rescue treatment. Results The Full Analysis Set comprised 48 nVNS-treated (14 eCH, 34 cCH) and 44 sham-treated (13 eCH, 31 cCH) subjects. For the primary endpoint, nVNS (14%) and sham (12%) treatments were not significantly different for the total cohort. In the eCH subgroup, nVNS (48%) was superior to sham (6%; p < 0.01). No significant differences between nVNS (5%) and sham (13%) were seen in the cCH subgroup. Conclusions Combing both eCH and cCH patients, nVNS was no different to sham. For the treatment of CH attacks, nVNS was superior to sham therapy in eCH but not in cCH. These results confirm and extend previous findings regarding the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of nVNS for the acute treatment of eCH.